SURAJ PRAKASH Vs. KANTA KUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.2012 passed by the trial court whereby decree of possession has been passed against the appellant in respect of first floor of the house bearing no. 122/144, South Enclave, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi, more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/2 (for short hereinafter referred to as "suit property"); money decree of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards damages for use and occupation of the suit property from 1st December, 2005 till 31st March 2006 @ Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month besides future damages @ Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with effect from 1st April, 2006 till handing over possession of suit property to the respondent has also been passed.

(2.) AS per the plaint appellant had purchased the suit property from Shri Arvinder Singh Kathuria against sale consideration of Rs.3,24,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Only) vide a registered Sale Deed dated 2nd December, 2005. Appellant was in possession of the suit property at that time. Upon enquiry he claimed that he had purchased the suit property from Shri Vasdev Dhingra on 21st May, 1996 on the basis of receipt and he had already filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in trial court. Suit property was originally allotted to Shri Vasdev Dhingra. Upon enquiry from Shri Vasudev Dhingra he informed that he had not signed any document in favour of appellant. Shri Vasdev Dhingra was aged about 75 years and was not in a position of taking any action against the appellant, thus, had sold the suit property to Shri Subhash Singh vide Agreement to Sell and registered General Power of Attorney the dated 25th September, 1998. Suit property was got converted into freehold and thereafter DDA executed a Conveyance Deed in favour of Sh. Subhash Singh. Subsequently, he sold the suit property to Shri Arvinder Singh Kathuria vide registered Sale Deed dated 11th June, 2004. Later on, Shri Arvinder Singh Kathuria sold the suit property to the respondent. Accordingly, respondent became owner of suit property. Appellant was an unauthorised occupant in the suit property. Respondent served a legal notice dated 25th February, 2006 on the appellant thereby called upon him to handover vacant possession of the suit property besides damages @ Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month with effect from 1st December, 2005. Despite service of notice to quit, appellant did not vacate the suit property; hence, the suit.

(3.) IN the replication, respondent denied the averments made in written statement and reiterated the averments made in plaint. It was specifically reiterated that appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit property and was an unauthorised occupant.